A question about buddhism...

[Sufjon]

Jesus simply does not speak of meditation or advocate the way of the mystic for His followers…

Hi Lisa: Personally, I think that it was probably some form of meditation that He was doing in the desert for 40 days, and similarly what the apostles were doing for 40 days as well while fasting. They were probably “being still and knowing that I am.” They were probably following the advice to" be thou of one eye." If you are familiar with Eastern religion, then of course you know where the “one eye” is, and would also be familiar with the idea of being still and knowing that “I am.” I don’t perceive that one can spend 40 days and 40 nights asking for your daily bread and accomplish much. In such cases, prayer must mean something much deeper. When you peal away all the “I am am this religion” and “you are that religion,” I suspect that we start to find a core that is the same.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Michael19682]

Not “determined”. That is a mistaken belief. They are conditioned by the moment preceding. If they were “determined” then all moral responsibility for our actions would cease, and that is an obvious error in Buddhist philosophy.

I prefer:
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.



Miracles are not confined to Christianity. Vimalakirti fed 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice. You need neither Jesus, nor Christianity, for miracles.

Correct. Buddhism is a “salvation by works” religion. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can offer advice and encouragement, but ultimately it is up to each individual to do the necessary work.

‘Fortunate’ because of our previous actions. We are living as a human in a time and a place when the dharma is available. What use we make of it is up to us.

Not just Buddhists, all living beings eventually attain nirvana. Some have already done it. Some will do it quickly. Some will do it slowly. Even Mara (the rough equivalent of Satan) will eventually attain nirvana.

In Buddhism nothing is permanent. That includes the heavens and the hells. Even nirvana has to change. If it can’t change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum then the whole exercise is pointless.

Correct. The Buddha preaches in the hells:

http://www.thangka.ru/gallery/img/koleso_3.jpg

The hells are at the bottom, with the Buddha preaching there, as in all the other destinations.

The sacrifice must be voluntary. Animal sacrifice is not. When Buddhism moves into a country, the main things that it tries to stop in other religions is human sacrifice and animal sacrifice.

Jesus’ sacrifice was voluntary.

rossum

Thank you! But if the death of an animal is in it’s karma (which you have changed to being a ‘condition’ of its present existence) and if nothing can directly affect that karma, how can a human vegetarian affect the animal’s fate. How do we know that if fish are not caught and eaten, and hence benefit certain starving people (I believe there are Buddhists who routinely eat fish, though they despise their own necessity for it), that the fish would not according to Buddhism have a prolonged agony in samsara? (I don’t want to make non comparative arguments here as I no longer accept the Buddhist paradigm). I myself took up vegetarianism for about eight years. Nevertheless, I have heard it said that the Muslims believe animals that humans eat, such as cattle, ‘accept’ their sacrificial death. Out of respect for this great ability, which must come from God - they are killed according to the strictest of humane procedures. People do not intend to inflict pain on their sacrificial animals. It was done for the benefit of a person(s). I agree that if that person is of the ungrateful type, as there seems to be evidence of in some cases, then the sacrifice is wasted.

 

[Michael19682]

I read all of your posts in that thread.
You don’t prove the statement I quoted. You are ignoring the question.

True. I might have ignored the question in those threads. But then again, you hadn’t yet posed your question at the time I wrote the answers.

Proofs are absolute and relative. Absolute proofs simply depend on no one’s acceptance of them. A relative proof improves relations between or among people. I’ll proclaim (with precedence or not, I don’t know), that relative proofs lead to the formation of absolute proofs among those who accept their both their relative proof and its consequences for their overall system of beliefs. Only when relations are improved to the point of the formation of absolute proofs which nobody can deny (like the ‘jolly good fellow’), can we say that people are united. Hence, logically, according to this reasoning, I cannot prove to you that you are conscious unless you are prepared to accept that proof based upon our relationship as fellow human beings. Jesus is a person who has shown perfect goodwill towards all men. I have found that followers of Jesus, especially the Roman Catholics, have shown me so much goodwill, and improved the state of my consciousness so much that I easily accept their claim/proof that I am a free willed being. I have found this proof relatively and now it is an absolute proof I share with all Roman Catholics.

First find this proof in relationship with a Roman Catholic. Then see if you concur that it is absolutely proven. I dare say that one of the purposes of this website is to form such relative proof of the kinds of things we call doctrine, dogma, faith, etc.

SO, are you conscious and do you have free will? If you say ‘no’ - what view of yourself do you have and what do you call it?

 

[rossum]

But if the death of an animal is in it’s karma (which you have changed to being a ‘condition’ of its present existence) and if nothing can directly affect that karma, how can a human vegetarian affect the animal’s fate.

Death is a result of being born (or hatched). Being born is a result of previous actions. Once you have been born then death is inevitable.

How do we know that if fish are not caught and eaten…

We don’t know. As always, we are acting on incomplete information. If we waited for complete information then we would never act, and inaction is itself a form of action. We act as best we can and we accept the consequences of those actions.

rossum

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: Personally, I think that it was probably some form of meditation that He was doing in the desert for 40 days, and similarly what the apostles were doing for 40 days as well while fasting. They were probably “being still and knowing that I am.” They were probably following the advice to" be thou of one eye." If you are familiar with Eastern religion, then of course you know where the “one eye” is, and would also be familiar with the idea of being still and knowing that “I am.” I don’t perceive that one can spend 40 days and 40 nights asking for your daily bread and accomplish much. In such cases, prayer must mean something much deeper. When you peal away all the “I am am this religion” and “you are that religion,” I suspect that we start to find a core that is the same.

Your friend
Sufjon

I’m just curious…have you ever read the N.T.? Where do you get your notions of Jesus from?

 

[Sufjon]

I’m just curious…have you ever read the N.T.? Where do you get your notions of Jesus from?

Hi Lisa: I count myself as fortunate in that regard in that I studied the New Testament for 2 years under the close guidance and care of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I was taught about Catholicism by them for five years. On occasion, some Jesuit priests would conduct the classes, but the sisters were in charge of my religious education. I had the benefit of a good deal of interactive discussion, and one on one time with the priests and one of the sisters very frequently. I will always be grateful to them for their time and loving care. These people were certainly on a very good path to God.

Anyway, was there something in my post that troubled or puzzled you?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[stewstew03]

Hi Lisa: I count myself as fortunate in that regard in that I studied the New Testament for 2 years under the close guidance and care of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I was taught about Catholicism by them for five years. On occasion, some Jesuit priests would conduct the classes, but the sisters were in charge of my religious education. I had the benefit of a good deal of interactive discussion, and one on one time with the priests and one of the sisters very frequently. I will always be grateful to them for their time and loving care. These people were certainly on a very good path to God.

Anyway, was there something in my post that troubled or puzzled you?

Your friend,
Sufjon

[Note to Sufjon - this is the appropriate place for the discussion you and I were having on a different thread]

If I can add one comment, and it’s something I mentioned on a different thread - for Hindus and Buddhists, the “end” seems to be mysticism, i.e., the discovery that ego, soul, and space/time/matter are an illusion, and sanctification is a journey toward that end. For us, particularly as Catholics, the “end” is sanctification, and perhaps so-called Eastern methods such as meditative prayer become part of that as we persevere to the end (although there is also a tradition of Christian mysticism, so not sure there is a need to look to Eastern methods).

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: Personally, I think that it was probably some form of meditation that He was doing in the desert for 40 days, and similarly what the apostles were doing for 40 days as well while fasting. They were probably “being still and knowing that I am.” They were probably following the advice to" be thou of one eye." If you are familiar with Eastern religion, then of course you know where the “one eye” is, and would also be familiar with the idea of being still and knowing that “I am.” I don’t perceive that one can spend 40 days and 40 nights asking for your daily bread and accomplish much. In such cases, prayer must mean something much deeper. When you peal away all the “I am am this religion” and “you are that religion,” I suspect that we start to find a core that is the same.

Your friend
Sufjon

Hi Lisa: I count myself as fortunate in that regard in that I studied the New Testament for 2 years under the close guidance and care of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I was taught about Catholicism by them for five years. On occasion, some Jesuit priests would conduct the classes, but the sisters were in charge of my religious education. I had the benefit of a good deal of interactive discussion, and one on one time with the priests and one of the sisters very frequently. I will always be grateful to them for their time and loving care. These people were certainly on a very good path to God.

Anyway, was there something in my post that troubled or puzzled you?

Your friend,
Sufjon

Don’t you know that Jesus is God?

 

[rossum]

Don’t you know that Jesus is God?

And to most Buddhists He is a Bodhisattva as well.

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

Don’t you know that Jesus is God?

Hi Lisa: Absolutely. Was there something I said that made you feel that I might have thought otherwise?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: Absolutely. Was there something I said that made you feel that I might have thought otherwise?

Your friend,
Sufjon

Yes, you said you thought he was doing meditation in the desert. I can’t imagine why God would need to meditate.

I don’t understand what you mean by - asking for your daily bread - would not be enough?

 

[Sufjon]

Yes, you said you thought he was doing meditation in the desert. I can’t imagine why God would need to meditate.

Hi again Lisa:

Conversely, why would God need to pray?

I don’t understand what you mean by - asking for your daily bread - would not be enough?

Specifically what I meant was that it is hard to imagine (at least in my thinking) that He spent 40 days and 40 nights saying the our father or saying any other prayer to himself. To me it seems more likely that He was partaking in some sort of communion with Himself and perhaps all of creation. This would be something that is accomplished through some sort of meditative practice. The rosary didn’t exist at the time, but that is a very good form of meditative practice that you are probably familiar with. Meditation is not alien to Abrahamic faith.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Lisa44]

Conversely, why would God need to pray?

Your friend,
Sufjon

He doesn’t. Exactly! Lets remember that when the bible records Jesus as going off to pray, he goes alone. So it makes you wonder how they were able to record what he was praying when he prayed alone.

And similarly, if we only know that Jesus went in the the desert and that he was alone, then we don’t know what he did there.

 

[Sufjon]

He doesn’t. Exactly! Lets remember that when the bible records Jesus as going off to pray, he goes alone. So it makes you wonder how they were able to record what he was praying when he prayed alone.

And similarly, if we only know that Jesus went in the the desert and that he was alone, then we don’t know what he did there.

Hi Lisa: I am having a hard time following your point. It seems that you are saying that Jesus had no need for prayer, however it also seems that your are acknowledging that He prayed. All I have said is that I rather think He was practicing a more meditative type of communion with the source of His being and with the world around Him. That is the highest form of prayer, and quite different from asking for this thing or that.

Anyway, my apologies for not understanding your point - it may be my fault for not being able to read it correctly.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Michael19682]

rossum:
Not “determined”. That is a mistaken belief. They are conditioned by the moment preceding. If they were “determined” then all moral responsibility for our actions would cease, and that is an obvious error in Buddhist philosophy.

I think it is not a question of word choice but of reality. Buddhists hold that all beings eventually attain Nirvanna. Hence, they have no choice but to become enlightened. No choice is no choice. I see no third way of interpreting it, and trying to make a Freewill argument by depending on the word “conditioned” is at best an appeal to time, which gives the illusion of choice within a delimted context where there is a measure human unpredictability. You said it yourself, Hell in Buddhist thought is not a permanent place.

The worst of our sinners, the damnably unrepentant and those who choose Hell, committ an error that is permanent and irrevocable. The Buddhists (and the poet Dante, as a Christian example) have imagined their torments with eloquence and creativity of an unknown source. Paradoxically, it is the permanency of both existence and God’s afterlife places - Heaven, Hell and Purgatory - that gives true meaning to Choice. Without permanency, choice becomes whim, fancy, and as Buddha himself pointed out, a joke.

 

[rossum]

I think it is not a question of word choice but of reality. Buddhists hold that all beings eventually attain Nirvanna. Hence, they have no choice but to become enlightened. No choice is no choice.

All that is born dies. When we are born, we are going to die; no choice. How we traverse the path between birth and death is up to us. Similarly, how we traverse the path between where we are now and nirvana is up to us. Quickly or slowly. By the fast route, or with many diversions and stops to view the scenery on the way. We have many choices in both cases. Our deaths are determined, but how we live our lives isn’t.

The worst of our sinners, the damnably unrepentant and those who choose Hell, committ an error that is permanent and irrevocable.

Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one. The closest Buddhism has is “unwise action”. The downside of not having sin is that Buddhism does not have any forgiveness of sin either. Actions have consequences. If you don’t want the consequences then don’t do the actions. Afterwards is too late:
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2

The Buddhists (and the poet Dante, as a Christian example) have imagined their torments with eloquence and creativity of an unknown source.

“Judging by the pictures, hell is by far the more interesting place.”

Paradoxically, it is the permanency of both existence and God’s afterlife places - Heaven, Hell and Purgatory - that gives true meaning to Choice.

I thought Purgatory was impermanent in Catholic teaching?

rossum

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa: I am having a hard time following your point. It seems that you are saying that Jesus had no need for prayer, however it also seems that your are acknowledging that He prayed. All I have said is that I rather think He was practicing a more meditative type of communion with the source of His being and with the world around Him. That is the highest form of prayer, and quite different from asking for this thing or that.

Anyway, my apologies for not understanding your point - it may be my fault for not being able to read it correctly.

Your friend
Sufjon

I didn’t say that. If someone goes off alone, and no one is with them, then how can anyone say what they were doing when they were alone. (Especially when the witnesses were sleeping.)

You are projecting onto Jesus when you say what he was doing in the desert. The fact is, we just know he went into the desert for 40 days.

 

[Sufjon]

I didn’t say that. If someone goes off alone, and no one is with them, then how can anyone say what they were doing when they were alone. (Especially when the witnesses were sleeping.)

You are projecting onto Jesus when you say what he was doing in the desert. The fact is, we just know he went into the desert for 40 days.

Hi Lisa: I understand what you’re saying now. While tradition most often holds that He went to the desert to fast and pray, the Gospel only says that He fasted. I don’t see where it says He prayed. Now that you mention it, that brings up another question. Unless there was a chronicler following Him everywhere, how did they know that He ran into the Devil out there in the desert. Did He come back and say, “hey guys, you’ll never guess who I ran into out in the desert…”

Anyway, I see your point.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Michael19682]

Sin is a Christian concept, not a Buddhist one. The closest Buddhism has is “unwise action”. The downside of not having sin is that Buddhism does not have any forgiveness of sin either.

If you consider that Hell is the most unwise of choices and that sin leads to the choice of Hell, then ‘unwise action’ and ‘sin’ are virtually synonymous. It is interesting that you focused on ‘sin’ as the Christian concept, then slipped for a moment via using the very term when you said Buddhism has no forgiveness of sin either - implying that you understand the concept to exist in Buddhism. Nevertheless, it is not sin that is unique to Christianity. Sin has it’s origins in Judaism, though all men know what it is. It is Forgiveness that is unique to Christianity. Buddhists must be able to forgive. I’m sure you have been transgressed by someone at some time. No body avoids insult, scorn, or some for of aggression against them. If you can continue to look that person in the eye and offer them a helping hand, say, your understanding of what helps that person achieve happiness, then no matter what religion you are have the basic understanding of forgiveness. Buddhism stresses the kindness of mother’s toward their children. Mother’s know forgiveness.

To understand the power of forgiveness you need to believe in it as a virtue. It can end a ‘bad karmic series of events’ (my words) if you are lucky enough to be forgiven and have faith in forgiveness. Just to make it simple, imagine that only you and one other person are left in the world. For some reason you smack that person in the face. Bad karma. The chief means of it being bad karma is that this other person might choose to smack you right back, starting a whole series of unhappy events and what would prove the world’s final war. But if that person totally forgives you, you can put aside your worries. You might still be on guard against retaliation, and that would cause you mental distress. But if you believed in forgiveness - if you had been hit before and had forgiven with all your heart - then the basis on which a person forgives, Love for his neighbor, would become your own attitude towards yourself and your neighbor who forgave you. Thus, if you see the psychology in a Christian way, forgiveness has the power to sever the course of events (karma) and satisfies all karmic debt. In a way it is kind of Eastern, Buddhist thinking. Your faith (something held in the mind) saves you, but that faith depends on a familiarity or practice of its principles of love, charity, etc. Since Christ was God Himself, who through creating man set the entire permutation of reality into motion (karma), His forgiveness satisfies the debt of all sin. A consequence of this is that those who are mystically born to life in Christ die to sin only. In truth, they do not die once they are born Christians. Their negative karmic debt as Buddhists would call it, is satisfied by the sacrifice of God.

By acknowledging the ‘spiritual’ in all religions, the Catholic Church would appear to extend its forgiveness and love to all people of all faiths, even to those who are not prepared to accept the name of Christ as synonym for the source Forgiveness.

Why did Buddha leave out Forgiveness as a something that can affect karma from “the other side”? Forgiveness was similarly ineffectual until Jesus demonstrated its highest form on the cross. Christians should therefore not expect faith in forgiveness from Buddhists who have not been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But still, Catholics acknowledge Buddhist capacity for forgiveness. It is both human and divine, as was its first teacher.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It is interesting that you focused on ‘sin’ as the Christian concept, then slipped for a moment via using the very term when you said Buddhism has no forgiveness of sin either - implying that you understand the concept to exist in Buddhism.

If qwerty does not exist, then forgiveness of qwerty does not exist either.

Buddhism stresses the kindness of mother’s toward their children. Mother’s know forgiveness.

People can forgive. Karma cannot. Think along the lines of: “Oh gravity, please forgive me, for I have jumped off a high cliff without a parachute and I am falling fast.” Forgiveness is an individual action, it will affect our future karma. It cannot change the past. If you jumped off the cliff, then you will have to suffer the consequences of your action.

Christian sin is an offence against God. Since God is offended, He can forgive. Karma is not God. Karma is not offended, any more than gravity is offended. Gravity cannot forgive; nor can karma.

Why did Buddha leave out Forgiveness as a something that can affect karma from “the other side”?

He didn’t. It can affect the forgiver’s karma. Affecting the forgivee’s karma is getting into the difficult theoretical area of ‘Transfer of Merit’. Forgiveness can have indirect effects as well:
The student Shichiri was reciting the sutras when a robber entered his room, put a knife to his back, and demanded his money. “Over there in the box,” said Shichiri, going on with his recitation.

As the robber was leaving, Shichiri said, “Leave me some for my taxes; they are coming around tomorrow to collect.” So the robber put back some of the money and started to leave.

“Don’t you thank someone who makes you a gift?” asked Shichiri. So the robber thanked him, and went off.

A few days later the robber was caught; and among other confessions, he said he had robbed Shichiri. But Shichiri refused
to testify against him. “I made him a gift of some money,” he said. “And he thanked me for it. That was all.”

The robber served a prison term. When he was freed, he went directly to Shichiri. “Will you be my teacher?” he said.

rossum